Recently, the Uttarakhand High Court ruled that rape laws are being misused as a weapon by women in modern society. The bench, presided over by Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, stated that if there is an element of consent available for the commission of the offense under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), it cannot be termed as rape because it involves a consensual relationship established by the consent of both parties.The case in question involved a complainant who had been in an intimate relationship with the accused for over 1-1/2 decades. During this time, they had promised to marry each other once either of them secured a job. They engaged in a physical relationship during this period and even continued after the accused got married to someone else. The complainant filed an FIR under Section 376 of the IPC.
Sonu alias Subhash Kumar v. State of U.P.: Precedent on Consent and Breach of Trust
The court observed that the definition of rape under Section 375 of the IPC is centered around the "consent of the opposite sex." If consent is present, the offense cannot be classified as rape but might be considered a breach of trust. The court noted that the offense under Section 376 of the IPC is being misused by females to take advantage of differences between themselves and their male partners, using it as a tool to exert pressure and for undisclosed reasons.The court referred to the case of Sonu alias Subhash Kumar v. State of U.P., which states that when a physical relationship is established with consent, it will not be considered rape. Instead, it might be treated as a breach of trust.
Testing the Falsity of Marriage Assurance: The Court's Emphasis
The court emphasized that the falsity of an assurance of marriage must be tested at the initial stage and not at a later stage. In this case, the complainant's claim of rape was made 15 years after the relationship began and continued even after the accused got married to someone else, leading the court to question the lack of consent.Ultimately, the court found that the complainant voluntarily established a relationship with the accused despite knowing that he was already married, implying that consent was present. Therefore, the court concluded that the act could not be termed as rape, and it appeared to be a consensual relationship.
Balancing Equity and Consent: The Court's Approach to Rape Offense
The court also noted that it must balance equity and examine whether the woman played an active role in the relationship to determine if the offense of rape was truly made out. The court relied on various Supreme Court rulings regarding consent and false promises of marriage before allowing the accused's plea to quash the rape case against him.Advocate Raj Kumar represented the accused-applicant, Deputy Advocate General TC Agarwal appeared for the State, and Advocate Pankaj Singh Chauhan represented the complainant-woman.